Since
first seeing the trailer for A History of Violence, I wanted to
like this movie, I really did. I wanted to write a glowing review, with
all kinds of nice comments about director David Cronenberg's artistry.
I wanted to compliment Viggo Mortensen's performance. I wanted to say how
impressed I was by the supporting players Maria Bello and Ed Harris. I
basically wanted to write a review where every line would be suitable
to appear on the movie poster. Though this movie is masterfully shot, written
well, and features some excellent performances, I will not be writing the
glowing review.
A History of Violence left me cold.
A
History of Violence is the story of Tom Stall. Tom lives in Smalltown
USA with his lovely wife, and his two children. Tom lives a quiet life,
not having too much happen in his day-to-day life. That is, until a robbery
at his diner causes him to commit an act of violence that will change his,
and his family's life forever.
Viggo Mortensen (Lord
of the Rings) plays Tom Stall. Though Mortensen does portray Stall
with a layered complexity, I never found myself getting emotionally involved
with his character. Mortensen gives Stall an understated ferocity. His
character is genuinely intimidating, but Mortensen never allows him to
become a one-note performance, peppering Stall's tough guy intensity with
moments of gentle awkwardness. Having said that however, I found
Stall's personality to be so wholly cold, that I found it impossible to
connect with him. Being kept on the outside of Mortensen's anti-hero made
the climatic moments of the film less than gripping, lessening the tension
throughout the entire film.
Maria Bello (The Cooler)
plays Tom's wife Edie. Bello's portrayal of a tough-as-nails woman
under pressure is quite impressive. Unlike most of her female action counterparts
who sit quietly off in a corner waiting for the male lead to come waltzing
in and save them, Bello's Edie holds her own against a husband she's unsure
of, the scrutiny of local law enforcement and the national press, and mafia
types threatning her children. What I really liked about Edie was that
underneath that fine layer of bravado was a core of vunerability, letting
me identify with her character. Bello's human reactions to incredibly stressful
situations make her the most genuine character in the film. Unfortunatley
Edie is so likeable, where Tom is so unlikeable, that you spend the majority
of Edie's onscreen time less concerned about the men with guns, and more
wondering why it is that she's spending her life married to such a cold
hearted man when she could do so much better.
A History of Violence
is artfully done, and I have no doubt will garner it's share of critical
accolades. My problem is that even though the film is well constructed,
beautifully acted, and well written, it's not emotionally involving. It's
unnessecarily brutal. While it is quite thrilling in moments, those moments
are too few and far between, and they're marred by the excessive
gore that those moments contain. (I can grasp that someone's been hit,
without having to see someone's face actually rearranged into goo.) All
the components of this movie are excellent when examined as seperate entities.
The director is great. I like all the actors involved. The story idea was
good. But the seperate entities didn't come together as I had hoped. I
wanted a gripping movie, with lots of excitement, great characters, and
an underlying message about how violence can affect your life. What I got
was a sort of exciting movie, that was gory, with brutal characters with
no seeming motivation for their actions, with no real message about violence
at all. Not at all the power piece that I had hoped for or expected, considering
the talent level involved.
Appropriate
Ages : 16 and up
Parental Warning Bells
: Graphic violence/Heavy gore/Murder of a Child/Full Frontal Nudity/Explicit
sexual content/Offensive language/Spousal and child abuse/Graphic depictions
of several sexual assaults/drug use/
Parental Film Barometer
: Though you may get some complaints from any Viggo Mortensen fans in your
family, if your child
couldn't sit through a Natural Born Killers or a Red Dragon
they shouldn't be anywhere NEAR this one. If your kids like Viggo, rent
Hidalgo
instead.
Memo to Two Groups of
Parents who brought their 9/10 year old boys to see this movie : When the
movie's
title actually has the
word "violence" in it, DON'T take your kids.
Jen
Johnston
Much
like Jim Jarmusch, David Cronenberg makes a stab for mainstream acceptability
– did I say stab, I meant shot – with his most accessible work since 1986’s
The Fly. Like then he has acquired a handsome cast, a gripping
story of how one person’s act can change his world and those around him
and a chance for the director to not be the star attraction of the piece,
unlike past work Spider and Existenz that relied upon his
name carrying the film.
The cast is Viggo Mortenson
finding a role to put the Lord of the Rings behind him and move
on; Mario Bello continues her slow progression up the Hollywood ladder
from independent muse to mainstream enigma and as always there is strong
support from Ed Harris and William Hurt.
The story concerns Tom
Stall (Mortenson), the owner of a small-town diner who defends his premises
from would-be thieves who turn nasty and the media circus that crowns him
a hero. Then follows the arrival of Carl Fogarty (Harris) who tells
Tom that he is actually Joey Cusack, a former member of the mob in Philadelphia
who left the game and disfigured Fogarty; this would explain the swiftness
with which Tom dealt with the thieves. This leads to Tom changing,
not in the eyes of the town where he lives, but more importantly to his
wife, Edie (Bello) and teenage son, Jack (Ashton Holmes) who himself is
a victim of bullying at school.
The eventual change in
Tom leads to a differing atmosphere in the once welcoming family home and
a difference in the sexual relationship between Tom and Edie. Earlier
in the film it was tender and loving; while the next time they make love
it is rough and brutal - bordering itself on violent – on the staircase
with a lack of feeling that was so apparent in the early scene. And,
the son also overcomes his bully with violence when pushed, but that leads
to a suspension and possible legal action from his antagonist’s family.
Critics may assume this
to be a glorification of violence, but the only scenes of violence are:
1, The attempted robbery
at the diner;
2, The fight on the Stall’s
front lawn;
3, The second sex scene
between Tom and Edie and,
4, The fight at the house
in Philadelphia.
These are mere pockets
of violence in a film that is really dealing with the cause and effects
of violence on the everyday person who uses it. In that case then
the film is looking for dramatic effect and not the mere pursuit of glorifying
violence, as opposed to the work of Tarantino.
Jen Johnston - in her
review of the same film above - stated that she found herself to be ‘not
emotionally involved’ with the film or the character Tom who she branded
an ‘anti-hero’. That is the point of having an anti-hero (is he even
a hero?) that is cold-hearted when you discover the truth behind the character.
It is no surprise to me that the film’s identity and visceral experience
comes from the violent scenes; the film works well as a drama until these
violent acts are visualised, after that all people will remember about
the film is the violence. Much like Cronenberg’s namesake Lynch did
with Blue Velvet (1986), this is critique of suburban, Middle America
is overshadowed by the darkness and sado-masochistic acts of Frank Booth
and to go further back into American history, people remember James Mason
flipping out in Bigger Than Life (Nicholas Ray, 1956) rather than
the message it attempted to convey about prescription drugs.
Cronenberg is served well
by a quality cast who do there jobs well but they are overshadowed by Cronenberg
whose history of ‘body horror’ comes to the fore by bringing a ting of
horror and looking away as he shows us the impact of a bullet hitting flesh
and a face being torn apart by glass. This is not a glorification
of violence but merely attempting to make real the gore of it. Cronenberg’s
direction is sparse and not overpowering in the dramatic scenes letting
the actors come into their own, but his attempts to do a mainstream film
and not be the headline act fails because he comes to the fore with these
violent scenes and (whether knowing it or not) relishes the opportunity.
Like Blue Velvet,
these critiques how far removed Middle America is from the east or west
coast with its everyday violence, and how an explosion of violence can
alter your interpretation of the self and others (even the Other if you
will). Violence makes and shapes America, as will your reaction to
this.
Jamie
Garwood
